Did she have an employer in the U.S. that was petitioning the government on her behalf, or was is just the dance team vouching for her? Yes it matters.

And for the corruption you encounter standing in line, do you really think opening up quotas is really going to change anything? It'll be business as usual, doesn't matter if its 7% or 17%. Anyway, tell it to someone who actually cares and can do something about it :rolleyes:
http://oig.state.gov/hotline/index.htm

Yes, it would be up to the courts however it's been pretty much assumed to be unconstitional by everyone except those who claim that illegal immigrants are not "under the jurisdiction" of the United States.

Jus Soli has been part of the US since its founding. It was codified in the 14th amendment. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The Supreme Court ruled in The U.S V. Wong Kim Ark
That despite the anti-Chinese laws at the time, that citizenship was granted and could not be revoked just because his parents were Chinese immigrants. At that time they ruled that the only people excluded under the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause were children born to foriegn diplomats and children born to enemy soldiers engaged in hostile action. In addition, at the time American Indians were excluded, although this changed later.

Plyer vs. Doe ruled that illegal immigrants were considered "in the jurisdiction."

As it is also in the constitution that no state shall revoke or refuse citizenship. Therefore, I have no problem saying that this is an unconstitutional law.

Your problem is classifying laws as pro or anti illegal immigration. I am against unconstitutional laws, laws based on prejudice and laws that just plain don't fix anything. Even if this law passed I don't believe it would actually deter illegal immigration, as plenty of people come over with their children as it is and those children are not automatically granted citizenship.
No you implied she was lying. You said you didn't believe her. Not that it shouldn't be like that but that it couldn't be like that. If you are ignorant of the fact that such corruption exists, then it is your responsibility to educate yourself instead of asking for proof then denying that it could be true.

And I continue to believe that our unmodified Jus Soli is part of what makes the US what it is, how it has developed historically, and who we are today. I think changing it would be unfortunate.

Cute. Way to be an asshole.

Do you own homework from here on.

My mistake then, what I meant to imply was that just because it LOOKs like someone just walked in and two minutes later walked out with a Visa in their hands doesn't necessarily mean that was the case. Who knows how many months of paperwork and bullshit that couple she had "HEARD" about had to go through. Not everything is as it appears. Like I previously said, if she is certain that the corruption is so bad and it's interfering in her friends chance at a better life than she needs to report it.

You have learned well, grasshopper.

Listen, I never asked you to look up 100 year old immigration cases to begin with and I'd like to warn you that I haven't had a cigarette in two days so I'm feeling exceptionally prick-ish today

Well, you did kinda:

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiKA2001 (Post 1943354) I think that's up to the SCOTUS to determine if it's unconstitutional. AFAIK the citizenship of offspring of non citizens born here has never been legally challenged.

Good luck on the cigarette front.

Thanks, This is hell. I've quit before, cold turkey and using medication, but it's never been this bad.

*bows* Yes sensei.

You'll note i have no problem using Wiki as a source for this sort of thing. Mostly because I'd heard about the cases but couldn't recall the details. :p


Then put down the keyboard until your response reflects your non-nicotine withdrawal thoughts. Good luck with quitting, just don't take it out on others.

I'm wondering how many of you and how many of the supposed 70% of supporters have actually read this law. There are quite a few points that have not been brought up here.

Point Number 1
If you are asked for proof of citizenship or legal residency and fail to show it, you can be arrested, incarcerated and fined upto $2500.00.

Point Number 1 - Part 2. A state issued ID, Driver's License or Social Security Card are NOT valid forms of Proof of Citizenship. Federally issued Govt IDs, passports, and Birth Certificates are pretty much the only thing acceptable.

Therefore, if you're asked for proof and don't happen to have your birth certificate or passport on you, you're phukked. Thankfully, you'll then have grounds to sue the state for illegal incarceration and then the state will be phukked.

Point Number 2
The people of Arizona have the right to sue the Law Enforcement Agencies upto $5,000.00 a day for not enforcing this law. The state will be phukked again.

Point Number 3
Racial profiling is illegal. In order to prevent this from turning into a Racial profiling nightmare. The only way to resolve this is to ask EVERYONE for their proof. Once again leading to illegal incarcerations and further lawsuits.

Illegal Immigration is a problem that needs to be remedied, but this law is wrong on far too many levels.

I've read the law Waxoff but have you? According to AZ a legit drivers license will do http://www.arizonaguide.com/arizona-...n-requirements

As for your point 2, residents can sue local governments/entities that refuse to follow the new law, but the monies collected from those lawsuits go straight to the AZ Dept of public safety, so I don't exactly see how that phukkkks the state.

Point 3- yes profiling is illegal, and the bill addresses that no one can be questioned based solely on race, and probable cause is needed for any arrest to be made. Unless it's proven otherwise, I'm going to give the AZ public safety officers the benefit of the doubt that they will not racially profile.

You've yet to hit the one aspect of the law that I find unnecessary and to be honest, kind of heartless.

Actually : 1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
3. A valid Arizona non-operating identification license.
4. Any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification, provided the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance*.

Not all states check immigration status when providing drivers licenses or ID cards. There are assorted reasons for this. And technically, legal citizens cannot be required to produce carry proof of citizenship *loophole the size of Texas*

Lawyers cost money.

Except it's been shown that police officers racially profile during traffic stops and in other situations. The best line the lawmakers have come up with on how they'll know without profiling is "well.. by how they dress." Which is silliness.

Your opinion of course. I agree with the police departments that said this will limit their ability to fight other crime because people will not come forward to talk to them. Police sometimes ignore that they're getting information from a prostitute to solve or investigate another crime. They won't be 'allowed' to ignore a suspected illegal immigrant.

I think the police in those areas will end up arguing that they have no idea what an illegal immigrant looks like.

I will also be "amused" the first time they arrest a Puerto Rican (because I think it will happen) and they get sued for violating a citizen's rights.

Well, unless the prostitute is loitering or is in the act she's not doing anything illegal. According to Federal law and now SB 1070 an illegal immigrant is ALWAYS breaking the law as long as they are present in the U.S. Undocumented.

It will suck for law enforcement if they encounter illegals regularly during the course of their investigations, and I'd love to hear from one, like a real one, and what they really think about this. I'm sure police know who and where the illegals are and hangout in their respected localities.

I don't anticipate any Puerto Ricans to be arrested in AZ, maybe a Northern state with similar laws might think that they are Mexican or South American, but everyone living in an area with a large Latino population should recognize the difference.

I'm still on the fence when it comes to the idea of sanctuary cities, it seems that for every one person who says that it helps foster a better relationship between law enforcement and immigrants, there's another saying it doesn't do squat to help build safer communities.

I don't know about talking to one in person, but there are numerous articles out there that quote police officers who talk about what they think about the issue if you want to hear what they think.

Im talking off the record with a regular Joe, a good chunk of the published quotes are from Police Chiefs, supervisors, union leaders and public affairs spokesmen.